Paul Abrams, one of the many charmers over at Huffington Post, hit the nail on the head in an article on Hillary’s insistence on winning via superdelegates:

The candidate that would change the nomination via unelected superdelegates cannot seriously expect the people to believe that their voices will be heard when that person is President. In her tearful moment Hillary Clinton said that politics to her was not about power but about helping people. Really, by taking the nomination from a popularly elected person, thwarting the will of the people?

No one who takes the nomination away from the person who is popularly selected can pretend at the same time to be hearing the peoples’ voices.

Obama has said that he believes the nominee ought to be the person who gets the most number of elected delegates. That is the right position, it respects the popular will.

One Response

Eh, at this point, I really think it’s paranoia if we still believe that superdelegates will give the win to Hillary if Obama wins the most pledged delegates and the popular vote. The Dems aren’t THAT stupid. They would never let that happen. As long as Obama stays ahead after Texas, Ohio and Penn, I don’t think he has to worry about superdelegates.

The only issue I could see would be if one candidate got more of the popular vote and the other candidate got more pledged delegates, which is a very possible option. That would put the Democratic party in quite the pickle.

Obama is killing in the popular vote right now. Even if you factor in Florida and Michigan, he’s STILL winning the popular vote. A big state like Texas could change that though. Time will tell.